HV 5091 
■ H3 W7 
-opy 1 



Federal Prohibition 
as Applied to the 
Territory of Hawaii 

Argument of John G. Woolley 
with Explanatory Statement by 
S.E.Nicholson, Gen. Secretary 
Anti-SaloonLeagueof America 




The American Issue Publishing Company 
Westerville, Ohio 



COPYRIGHTED 

JY THE AMERICAN ISSUE PUBLISHING CO. 

1911 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 



©CU30304 



Federal Prohibition as Applied 
to the Territory of Hawaii 



Argument of 
JOHN G. WOOLLEY 

with 

Explanatory Statement 

of the 

Anti-Saloon League of America 



Filed with the Senate Committee on Pacific Islands and Porto 

Rico and the House Committee on Territories, 

February, 1911 



By The Anti-Saloon League of America 
30-31 Bliss Bldg., Washington, D. C. 



C\ 



^v^ 

^ ^ 



<UNION[ «gf TLABEC 



Historical Explanatory Statement 



During the second session of the 6ist Congress Senator Curtis 
of Kansas introduced a bill (S. 5253) to prohibit the selling of intoxi- 
cating beverages in the territory of Hawaii. Hearings were had on this 
measure before the House and Senate Committees, the principal argu- 
ment in favor of the bill being made by John G. Woolley, at 
that time Superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League of Hawaii. The 
measure was strenuously opposed by the Delegate from Hawaii, Hon. 
J. Kuhio Kalanianaole, chiefly on the ground that when Hawaii was 
taken over by the Federal government, it was guaranteed to a large 
degree the right of local self government. 

Subsequently a referendum measure was substituted for the 
prohibition bill, by which the electors of the territory were permitted 
to vote on July 26, 1910, upon the question whether or not the Terri- 
torial Legislature should be requested to pass a prohibition measure 
for the people of the Island. At the time this action was taken the 
Anti-Saloon League of America was temporarily without representa- 
tion at the National Capitol, and therefore no protest could be made at 
the time. The following statement, submitted a year later by the 
Legislative Superintendent will explain the League's position, while 
the statement of John G. Woolley printed herewith, and to which 
special attention is called, is a full exposition of the circumstances 
connected with the holding of the referendum election referred to. 
In closing this explanatory statement we would call attention to the 
editorial in "The Friend" of Honolulu for the month of March, 191 1, 
which, we believe, is an unanswerable argument from the standpoint 
of the native islanders in favor of Federal prohibition. The following 
is the editorial: 

If the liquor question here were a merely local one, there 
would be no need of appealing to Congress. But it is National. 
The great liquor power of the Nation has decreed the subjugation of 
Hawaii and only the greater power of the Nation incarnated in Con- 
gress can save us from the consequences. Beyond this one law, we 
do not need Congress to legislate for us. 

The Anti-Saloon League asks all friends of good government 
everywhere to join in a great National campaign to bring relief to 
the people of Hawaii from the oppression of the liquor traffic by 
means of Federal prohibition. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE OF AMERICA. 
Washington, D. C, July, 191 1. 



Attitude of the Anti-Saloon League of America 



Statement filed with the Senate Committee on Pacific Islands 
and Porto Rico, and the House Committee on Territories. 

Washington, D. C, Feb. n, 1911. 
To the Senate Committee on Pacific Islands and Porto 
Rico and the House Committee on Territories : 

In connection with the statement of John G. Woolley, 
submitted herewith, concerning the election held in the Ter- 
ritory of Hawaii, July 26, 1910, relating to the sale of intoxicat- 
ing" liquor in the Island, I desire on behalf of the Anti-Saloon 
League of America to present the following statement : 

The arrangement, by which at the last session of Con- 
gress the reference of the question to a vote of the people was 
substituted for the bill prohibiting the manufacture and sale of 
liquors in the Territory, was not satisfactory to the Anti-Saloon 
League. The officers of the League felt at that time and feel 
now that either Congress should not have dealt with the ques- 
tion at all, or it should have taken such action as would have 
guaranteed full protection to the residents of the Territory 
from the harmful influence of the liquor traffic. The League 
felt then and feels now that the Federal Government was as 
much justified in guaranteeing protection from the traffic in 
intoxicants to the native residents of Hawaii, as it has been in 
guaranteeing protection to the Indians of our own country ; 
and so far as ability to judge wisely for themselves is con- 
cerned, based upon experience in dealing with the liquor traf- 
fic, the natives of that Island were in little better position to 
decide a referendum upon the question than any of the Indian 
Tribes of our own country would be. 

However Congress may judge relative to this particular 
matter, the Anti-Saloon League believes that new conditions 
have arisen as a result of the election on July 26th, which 
make Federal prohibition for the Territory now even more of 
a necessity than formerly. The expenditure of $60,000 (so 
reported) of United States liquor money to purchase the elec- 

5 



tion on July 26th in favor of the liquor interests has introduced 
a new element of corruption among the native electors, the on- 
ly remedy for which, in the judgment of the Anti-Saloon 
League, is Federal prohibition for the Territory enacted by the 
United States Congress ; otherwise, the liquor interests of that 
Territory, already indebted to the great liquor interests of the 
United States, will, by taking advantage of the inexperience of 
the native Islanders, dominate the public policy of the Terri- 
tory henceforth, to a most harmful degree. 

This will explain the desire and purpose of the Anti-Saloon 
League of America to re-open the question in the form of a 
proposition to adopt a Federal prohibitory policy for the Terri- 
tory of Hawaii. Very cordially, 

S. E. NICHOLSON, 
Legislative Superintendent. 



Federal Prohibition in the Territory 
of Hawaii 



Together with a Review of the Referendum Election, July 

26, 1910, and the Causes which Led to the 

Defeat of the Temperance Forces. 

A Plea for Federal Protection to be Extended to the Island 

of Hawaii as against the Ravages of the 

Liquor Traffic in that Island. 

BY JOHN G. WOOLLEY 



To the Senate Committee on Pacific Islands and Porto 
Rico and the House Committee on Territories : 

The astonishing vote of the Territory of Hawaii, July 26, 
1910, pursuant to the Joint Resolution of Congress, seems to 
call for a statement from the proponents of the bill to prohibit 
the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in the Terri- 
tory and I respectfully submit the following: 

It will be recalled that at the last session the bill was 
introduced and favorably considered in committee. But before 
it could be reported out the Chairman of the Senate Committee 
at the solicitation of Mr. Kalanianaole appointed a supplemen- 
tary hearing. 

In the supplementary hearing the Delegate took small 
part, except to suggest by his manner the historic remark of 
Mr. Toots : "I feel as if I could express my feelings at the pres- 
ent moment in a most remarkable manner if I could only get 
a start." 

The laboring oar was taken by Mr. McClellan who pre- 
sented a very full and very able argument on behalf of the 
Chamber of Commerce, and the Merchant's Association of 
Honolulu. This argument was simply a demurrer to the ad- 
visability of direct Federal action, over and above the Territor- 

7 



ial government, and raised no issue on the merits of the pro- 
posed legislation. 

The trusted servant of the Liquor Dealers 'Association of 
Honolulu, in the legal profession, whose convictions against 
Federal interference in Island matters are so concrete and con- 
sistent that in connection with the manager of the Honolulu 
brewery he tried diligently to set up a saloon of his own 
abutting on the United States Cavalry Camp at Leilihua. miles 
from the possibility of any customers but soldiers, in contempt 
and defeat of the Federal law which excludes alcoholic liq- 
uors from military camps and reservations. And he failed of 
his patriotic purpose only because the land owners, including 
the Oahu Railway Company, refused to let their property be 
put to such unpatriotic uses. He was present and eligible to be 
heard for the professional, political, and social undertow, of 
which he is so conspicious a part; but exercised himself only 
in whispers to the Delegate. Immediately after the hearing a 
report ran through the Islands that he had "presented Woolley 
a gold brick," a report which subsequent events somewhat 
corroborated; and I may say that, returning to the subject 
after a chastened and informing adjustment of my hindsight, 
I look forward, with sufficiently modest enthusiasm, to a re- 
turn of the metal, with the thanks of the brickee, for the pleb- 
iscite, which in its immediate purpose failed so signally, shed 
such a light on the electorate concerned as to confirm in gospel 
measure, "pressed down and running over," my original con- 
tention here, that the native people of Hawaii are as incapable 
of self-government, as regards the liquor business, as they are 
incapable of self-restraint in the absorption of its output. 

From the inception of this measure to this minute no man, 
in committee or on the floor of Congress, has offered one word 
of opposition to the bill on its merits. So that as to the gist of 
the proposition we have, so far, this state of things : The 
Honolulu Chamber of Commerce says nothing. The Merch- 
ants' Association says nothing. The Bar Association says 
nothing. The Counsel for "the trade" says nothing. Mr. 
McClellan says nothing. 

On the other hand, the Delegate says : "Under the mon- 
archy we had only a few saloons and those good ones. The 
Hawaiians did not patronize them. But the Hawaiians do 
patronize the low doggeries such as we have now. **■*_■* 

8 



The Hawaiian unfortunately does not drink for the taste of 
the liquor. He drinks to get drunk, and the liquor that will 
make him drunk soonest is the liquor he wants. If a prohibi- 
tion bill is introduced in the legislature I will support it and 
work for it." 

Members of Congress will remember the snowstorm of 
letters that fell upon their desks begging for favorable action 
on the Johnson bill. 

The Civic Federation of Honolulu cabled the Chairman 
of the Senate committee as follows : 

Honolulu Civic Federation, a popular body not sharing opinion 
expressed by local commercial bodies in protest that Curtis bill im- 
perils home rule, voicing the strong sentiment of Territory favoring 
prohibition by congressional action, unaminously, earnestly petitions 
your committee to report bill favorably and urges -Congress to enact 
stringent Federal prohibition of liquor traffic for Hawaii. 

Castle, President. 

The Social Science Association of Honolulu — easily the 
first of Island societies in point of ability, learning and activity 
— sent to the Chairman this cablegram : 

Honolulu Social Science Association indorses federal prohibi- 
tion liquor traffic for Hawaii and federal enforcement thereof. 
Hartwell, Chief Justice. 
Castle, President Civic Federation. 
Alexander, Historian of Hawaii. 
Thurston, President Hawaiian Gazette Co. 
Home, President Kamehameha Schools. 
Whitney, Circuit Court Judge. 
Scott, Principal High School. 
Scudder, Minister Central Union Church. 

The wife of the Governor, with the president of every 
Woman's Society in Honolulu, cabled the Delegate at a cost of 
nearly 'three hundred dollars, asking that women be allowed 
to vote at the special election. 

The Evangelical Churches, The Hawaiian Evangelical 
Association and the Anti-Saloon League, were, as a matter of 
course, strong for the bill. The Morman Church and the Re- 
organized Church of Latter Day Saints probably cast their 
vote unanimously for prohibition. Only two well known min- 
isters were opposed. The Belgian Roman Catholic Bishop 
was frankly on the liquor side, and the Protestant Episcopal 
Bishop came out strongly for ''the trade" and composed a bat- 

9 



tie cry of remarkable wisdom and piety : that they adopted — 
''Better be free than sober." 

If the case could have been tried by some quantitive 
chemistry or some psychological system of weights and meas- 
ures the public sentiment would have shown an enormous pre- 
ponderance for prohibition, even without organization and 
leadership ; but the trial by wager of ballots put the test upon a 
basis where the Hawaiian natives are a mere flock of sheep ; 
and there was only one possible shepherd who could lead them 
out along high civic lines — The representative of the royal 
family, the Delegate of the Territory. 

The final hearing on the former bill turned wholly on a 
question of courtesy to the Hawaiian electorate. The right 
and power of Congress to govern the Territory was asserted 
as clearly in ordering a special election as it would have been 
in the passage of the Johnson bill. The case for prohibition 
was won in the argument before the Senate Committee, and 
Governor Frear in the following cablegram gave strong con- 
firmation to the committee's judgment: 

Honolulu, February 10, 1910. 
Hon. K. Kalanianalole, Washington: 

Prohibition sentiment growing here, but many oppose Federal 
legislation either because they fear it may prove entering wedge for 
further federal legislation inimical to local government or because they 
believe development of self government question should be fought 
out locally. I think prohibition or further restriction by territorial 
action preferable if feasible, though doubtful as to its feasibility, and 
realizing practical advantages of federal legislation because immediate 
and more effective. The possibility of prohibition by federal action 
will have salutary effect here in strengthening prohibition forces and 
checking audacity and pernicious activity of some of the liquor inter- 
ests. Personally I would not advocate federal action unless further 
local effort through next legislature should prove unsatisfactory or 
unless conditions should change otherwise so as to call more imper- 
atively for federal action. Frear, Governor. 

The Senate Committee was won over to the view that it 
would be better to modify the congressional action in accord- 
ance with the desire of the Delegate and the opinion of the 
governor, so as to permit the territorial legislature to act, if it 
would. I opposed the modification on the ground that a fair 
election would not be possible. But later I became satisfied 
by statements of the delegate in the Committee, that his as- 

10 



sistance could be secured by an agreement to substitute the 
Joint Resolution, which accordingly was made. 

Subsequently events confirmed me, for a time, in the 
opinion that the substitution was wisely made (although my 
principals promptly and emphatically informed me that I had 
been had) and in full faith I entered into relations of confidence 
and co-operation with Mr. Kalanianaole looking to success for 
prohibition by the popular action. I had serious doubts of the 
advisability of my returning to the Islands to take part in the 
plebiscite. The Hawaiians are very sensitive about the polit- 
ical activity of outsiders. I laid this personal problem before 
the Delegate in sundry conversations, saying that I would 
gladly remain in the mainland and leave the whole campaign 
to him. It was his judgment that there could be no objection 
to my going back to begin the organization of the campaign, 
especially among the whites, as he would be detained in Wash- 
ington to see the Joint Resolution through the House and at- 
tend to other business in Congress for the territory. He said 
to me, in substance, "You go ahead and get the whites in line. 
There is no fear about the Hawaiians. I shall be back by the 
first of June and lead the Hawaiians. They will go by a very 
large majority for prohibition." By this time I had dismissed 
every doubt of his sincerity. In place of them I got back later 
some very unpleasant certainties. 

In an open letter published in Honolulu on the eve of the 
November election, defending his conduct in the plebiscite, the 
Delegate explains as follows : "I made no promise that I was 
going to stump the Islands for prohibition. After the law pro- 
viding the plebiscite was passed, I had a talk with Mr. Woolley 
about what was to be done. He said he was coming back to 
Hawaii to work for prohibition. Knowing the strong objection 
which Hawaiians have against Malihinis trying to direct them 
what to do, I told him I thought I would go home as soon as 
Congress adjourned and lead the fight for prohibition myself. 
He thought he knew best and came himself. I feared the con- 
sequences then, but still I intended to come home as soon as 
I could to help. I said I would speak for prohibition, and I 
then intended to do so, although I did not say I would 
'stump the Islands/ " 

This statement in so far as it relates to the conversation 
with me about my return to the Islands is — not to be unparli- 

ii 



amentary — an error. We had the conversation, but the Dele- 
gate's advice was exactly the reverse of what he says it was, 
and was, and he knew it was, the determining element in my 
decision to return. My mind, as I say, had become fully sat- 
isfied of the good faith of the Delegate. But it never did get 
quite at rest on the question of my return to the Territory. 
My position was embarrassing. If I remained away and the 
campaign went awry I should be blamed, and should blame 
myself. On the other hand, if I went into it and fell into the 
role of a red herring, to confuse the issue, I should be ridic- 
ulous. I am not yet clear about the matter. I did the best I 
knew. It must go at that. In the next paragraph of the same 
open letter, referring to his health, the Delegate uses these 
words : "I thought the trip on the Hawaii would do me as 
much good, and accordingly came that way. Knowing that I 
was due to stump the Islands for the November election, I 
made up my mind before leaving Washington that it was not 
wise for me to follow up my first intention of stumping for 
prohibition." 

This seems to show that whatever may have been his 
phyisical condition his moral reactions were eccentric. 

At the hearing in the House Committee on Territories the 
record shows that I used these words : "I came fully per- 
suaded that direct federal control was the only remedy and I 
made the best fight I knew how to make to secure it. The ar- 
gument of Prince Kalanianaole has not convinced me that I 
am in error; but it has convinced me that the wise course for 
the present is that which we have agreed to, as set forth in 
this Joint Resolution. With the earnest co-operation of the 
Prince, which is now assured, and under his leadership, we 
shall, doubtless carry the Territory for a prohibitory policy and 
doubtless also the next legislature will substantially obey the 
mandate of the people. If not, we shall have eliminated the 
present objection to federal control and can apply confidently 
to Congress for relief." The Delegate was present and made 
no sign of dissent. 

Acting on our agreement, I returned to the Territory to 
find an almost complete skepticism as to my confidence in the 
arrangement. Would the Delegate keep his word? That was 
the whole question. If he did, we should carry the election, 
hands down. If he failed us we were shipwrecked in the 

12 



launching-. He had authorized me to say privately that I knew 
he would be back home to lead the campaign. But he asked 
me to leave him to make the public announcement in his own 
way and his own time. This seemed entirely reasonable. So 
while the guardian of his property and all the men who knew 
him intimately predicted with great positiveness that he would 
stay away, I defended him and, resting confidently on his prom- 
ises, proceeded to form a committee of citizens of all races 
and religions to conduct the campaign. It Avas the intention to 
limit this committee to one hundred prominent persons. But 
there was such general interest that the number ran up to 135 
immediately. This committee contained the cream of the man- 
hood of the Territory. The Governor, Auditor, Treasurer, At- 
torney General, the Chief Justice, the Federal Judge, the 
Superintendent of Schools, the leading men of the Island in 
point of ability, wealth, culture and character, were either 
active in the committee, or in close and outspoken sympathy. 
On the liquor side the campaign was planned in naked 
fraud but very skillfully. The odds in favor of the liquor dealer, 
in such an election, is that he can make a basis where no decent 
man can meet him. In the dark lexicon of the liquor trade 
there i^ no such word as "foul." The statement of the Pacific 
Advertiser early in the campaign was justified in every detail 
by what followed : 

"The liquor men are preparing for a hard fight. They will have 
money to burn, and intend to scatter the ashes from Puna to Napali. 
They recognize the very obvious fact that the Hawaiians today are 
strongly for prohibition, but they cheerfully announce that money will 
change all that. They have figured how many Hawaiian votes it is 
going to take to give them a majority, and they have decided upon the 
price they intend to pay for that number of votes. 

"The prohibition forces are expecting John G. Woolley back 
early in- May, and the hostilities are expected to start on his arrival. 
One wing of the liquor men desires to make the fight one against 
Woolley personally, having saved up the published reports of Wool- 
ley's speeches in the East and taken out phrases in which he de- 
scribes the Hawaiians as wards of the Nation and in need of protec- 
tion. These are to be extensively quoted as showing that Woolley 
despises the Hawaiians and wants to classify them as Indians. The 
explanatory words accompanying these are to be carefully omitted. 

"The prohibitionists are girding up their loins also for the fray, 
and expect to carry the war into the enemy's country." 

The silence of the delegate brought to us such compre- 
hensive disaster, that we never even reached the point of 

13 



having an argument. The campaign begun, continued and end- 
ed in mere clamor against the "missionaries" and the Malihini 
— myself. The intellectual and moral caliber of the Hawaiian 
masses may be seen in the editorial columns of the Honolulu 
Examiner, a newspaper owned by a very distinguished Hawaii- 
an and edited by David Hoolapa. In the issue of June 18, 1910, 
the keynote o fthe plebiscite, from the native point of view, is 
tersely sounded. It leaves nothing in doubt but the rules of 
English composition: 

"We want freedom and liberty. We do not want to be restricted 
from our rights and dictated to by this Malihini, this is supposed to be 
a free country. 

"We are here in this world to do what we can in an upright 
and honest manner to make a living to support our families and so on. 
Why at this late hour comes a voice from a foreign point to frame 
laws for us Hawaiians and those who are residing here also and who 
sympathize with us Hawaiians." The liquor dealers. 

"We are trying to be content with what's left. What more do 
these pretended friends of Hawaii want? Do they want everything 
and we who own the very soil they tread upon give up our rights and 
cannot express our thoughts and ideas? No! No! Not us! 

"We have had enough of them, therefore, Ye Hawaiians, this is 
the day and hour we must stand hand in hand and with one heart and 
soul say no to the wishes of these people; and the voice of the Liquor 
Dealer who pay heavy licenses. — They are your friends. Ye Hawaiians 
stand by them, remember the power is in your hands, if you Hawaii- 
ans came together and make up your minds to win out and get the 
control of both houses in the next Legislature then you Hawaiians 
can make laws to suit yourselves. Remember your country Flag, 
King! Queen! Princes! and Princesses! Are gone now, one more 
precious stone is left to you Hawaiians which will glitter and sparkle 
if you all get together and that is your votes." 

Again in the issue of July 30th, the editor sums up the 
plebiscite from the rear: 

"No was the word that sent joy all over the Territory of Ha- 
waii. No was the two letters that defeated the M'alihini and his fol- 
lowers. Why? Because God looked down and saw that the liquor 
people were working hard to earn money to support their families in 
an upright manner, therefore God pitied them and granted their wishes. 
The liquor dealers won also because they were right in every respect. 
Why, who ever heard of such trash to force a law down our throat 
without the consetn of the people. Mr. Smarty, How do you feel 
after the defeat! That's what you get for playing smarty in the terri- 
tory of Hawaii. We people of Hawaii neither will let you nor another 
like you come here and dictate to us as we have enough brains to run 

14 



the reins of our own country and don't need you to instruct us. I 
told you Mr. Malihini several times in the columns of this paper that 
the liquor dealers were the lords of Hawaii Nei and that they are very 
powerful people that when they look up to the skies the stars even 
drop because they are so powerful and still you would not listen 

"Mr. Malihini don't you think it is about time that you ought 
to be sailing, sailing, sailing, across the deep blue sea as you must 
be down-hearted for the sake of the poor Hawaiians as your Aloha 
for them is so great that your poor heart is breaking but wipe your 
tears away man and go back where you came from. Don't come 
here to Honolulu and have sudden Alohas for us Hawaiians. That's 
too thin." 

These native editorials show fairly also the tenor of the 
English papers on the liquor side, although no decent English 
paper was on that side. 

Agents of the liquor dealers were sent to the coast to 
collect funds, large contributions were secured locally, and the 
tide ran against us strongly. But I was not disturbed. I 
thought I knew that the Delegate would be with us, and I did 
know, and know now, that his presence and leadership would 
mean certain victory. The lie of the prostitute English news- 
paper — editorially for sale to anybody for anything, if only the 
price be right — that put me up as the issue, would go to pieces 
at a word from him. One clear call from him, even by letter, 
saying: "The Joint Resolution was written in my office and it 
gives us Hawaiians a chance to prove up. Get together like 
men and show your quality," would clear the atmosphere of 
prejudice and falsehood and put the natives on their metal as 
patriots, Christians and loyal friends of the royal family. 

But he failed us. We heard that he was ill. Then we 
heard of him at the Jeffries-Johnson prize fight. Then we 
heard that he had gone yacht racing. This letter was pub- 
lished in Honolulu : 

"San Francisco, July i, 1910. 
"My dear Mr. Lane: — I have been invited to go home on the 
yacht Hawaii by Captain Wilder and have concluded to accept. I 
shall enjoy the trip and believe that it will benefit my health, which 
you know is by no means what it ought to be, and if I can help a 
little to get the goat in first, so much the better. 

"The only point against it is the vote on the liquor question to 
be taken on the 26th, but I have come to the conclusion that my being 
there is going to drive the election right into politics, and it will be 
used and handled only to get some advantage, one way or the other, 
for the regular elections in November. 

IS 



"I allowed my name to go on the committee handling the tem- 
perance side of the fight, because on the temperance question I want 
to be with temperance, not against it. I also believe that many of the 
saloon men have forfeited all right to consideration by the way they 
have been handling their business, particularly among Hawaiians, and 
I felt a vigorous protest of some kind was necessary. Personally 
I would be pleased to see every Hawaiian cut liquor out altogether. 
They would be better off without it, but this is as far as my mind 
has gone. 

"You know I am not a teetotaler and not a prohibitionist, and 
I certainly want no laws which work among race lines. The day 
for that in Hawaii is pau. What the Hawaiians as Hawaiians do must 
be a matter of free will and personal choice, but general laws reaching 
all races that curb the evils of liquor I will always help, and I am 
glad to hear that the liquor agitation has already cut out many saloons 
and shut off the sale of the worst kind of liquors. The present law 
is showing up well in these respects. 

"However, as I have already said, I don't propose, so far as I 
am concerned, that the special election shall be used to do politics. 
Proper consideration of the rights of the Republican Party alone, 
which has made no party declaration on the subject, would require 
this from me. The cause of temperance itself will be injured by 
allowing the special election to take any such turn but I have felt at 
liberty to express my personal sympathy and good will for the cause 
of temperance and to aid in the enforcement of the laws from that 
standpoint, and this I have already fully done. 

"So I am making my plans to go on the Hawaii, and let us hope 
for once that a Jonah on board will bring good luck. 

Yours with aloha, 

"KUHIO." 

This letter, however charitably one may construe it, sug- 
gests either the continuing shyster or the demoralized weak- 
ling. He fears that his active participation in the canvass will 
drive the liquor question into politics. But his letters were on 
file in the office of the leading Republican of Honolulu insist- 
ing that the Republican Party take up prohibition as its own 
issue, and (on having been advised adversely to that) stating 
positively that he would come home and take up prohibition 
as an individual. I am not permitted to produce these letters, 
but they are in existence and I have read them. 

He says : "Personally I would be pleased to see every 
Hawaiian cut liquor out altogether. They would be better off 
without it, but this is as far as my mind has gone." Yet in 
committee he had declared himself in favor of prohibition for 
the sake of his people, in his office had pledged himself to me 

16 



to lead his people to that end. and had notified the leader of 
his party that he was coming home to do that. 

He says : "You know I am not a teetotaler and not a pro- 
hibitionist, and I certainly want no laws which work along 
race lines." Yet he knew when he wrote that, that absolutely 
the whole cry of the native voters at the time was that the 
plebiscite was a white man's trick, to have his liquor by person- 
al importation and to deprive the poor Hawaiian. And that 
false alarm he practically endorses. 

He says : "The present law is showing up well." Yet he 
had offered himself to lead an effort of Congress to change it 
for prohibition. 

The Delegate reached the Islands two days before the 
election, gave out an equivocal interview and lapsed into a 
silence that could be felt. Then I knew that, from the first, or 
from some later point of his departure from uprightness or 
courage, I had been betrayed. This is the interview : 

"The Prince was met by an Advertiser reporter on the 
deck of the Yacht Hawaii on which he arrived from San Pedro 
after the fleet craft had finished victorious in the trans-pacific 
race. 

"Prince, what are you going to do about prohibition?" he 
was asked. "I have no time for prohibition," he replied. 

"Well, how are you going to vote?" "I am going to vote 
for prohibition." 

Another Advertiser reporter who did not know the prince 
had been approached on the prohibition issue, met him as he 
came out of the Alakea wharf and started to enter an automo- 
bile in which the princess and several other persons were wait- 
ing for him. Kuhio had a broad smile on his face. He beamed 
with joy from having arrived home from a long sojourn in the 
States. " 

"Prince," said the reporter, "the people of Hawaii would 
like to know how 3-011 stand on the question of prohibition, and 
the Advertiser would like to inform them. "Oh, they all know 
how I stand," was his answer. 

"No, it seems they do not from your letter printed re- 
cently." "You will have to let me go now. I have been so 
deeply interested in the yacht race that my mind is full of that 
and nothing else." "Yes, but you can say how you stand, 
can't you?" 

17 



"Oh, I haven't got the time to talk about it now." 

The Prince was sifling away by that time. 

"Will you not say what you are going to do — how you are 
going to vote?" he was asked. 

"I haven't got time to talk about it," said the Prince, seat- 
ing himself beside the princess, and the car sped away. 

It will be seen at a glance that this letter and this inter- 
view of the Delegate were simply fuel to the flame of preju- 
dice and lying that had been set, and from the day the Joint 
Resolution became a law no other public message to his peo- 
ple was uttered by their representative. 

I say nothing about the motives of the Delegate. But I 
say that undoubtedly his conduct in the premises actually pro- 
duced an abortion of the plebiscite and gave away the greatest 
opportunity he ever had, or will have, to add distinction to his 
name. For lack of his presence, or any clear, honest call, by 
letter, to his people, the liquor association had no difficulty 
in the way of complete success. 

An ordinary election in the Territory, so far as the native 
Hawaiian voters are concerned, is solely and openly a matter 
of money. When Congress, against the protest of the Sub- 
committee of the Hawaiian Commission, gave universal suff- 
rage to the natives, it drove the business interests to the alter- 
native of controlling elections by the use of money or becoming 
subject to the vagaries of a lot of semi-barbarious children. 
There are some splendid men among them but the average 
Hawaiian is an amiable child, as irresponsible as the Southern 
Negro and less thoughtful than the Northern Indian. He 
never gets intellectually much beyond the age of puberty. He 
is completely subject to the latest inducement that is offered 
him, and the last word in the campaign was a bottle of "square 
face" gin and a bribe of crooked money. I ought to say, how- 
ever, that the use of money in Hawaiian elections is not re- 
garded locally as a corruption, nor does it take the form of 
direct bribery. Self preservation is the first law of business; 
and the Hawaiian majority is a constant and imminent peril. 
Thus, the men that pay the bills of the Territory keep their 
hands on the natives, and the natives themselves, in a sense, 
are the better for it ; but they do not learn the meaning of man- 
hood and democracy in the operation. 

From liquor sources I have information showing that, of 

18 



money collected locally and on the mainland, from $50,000 to 
$60,000 were spent to defeat prohibition. 

In this plebiscite of dollars we could not compete, for ob- 
vious reasons. We had the best men and women of the Terri- 
tory on our side and we had plenty of money to swamp the 
liquor association, if it had been that kind of a competition. 
Repeatedly great men of wealth said to me : ''Don't lose this 
fight for lack of money, you can have all you want." And when 
I inquired as to the- sum available for proper expenses, I was 
told not to ask questions but to make the drafts and they 
would be paid. But the prohibition league unanimously took 
the position that to carry that election on the usual money 
basis of Hawaiian political campaigns would be useless and 
infamous. 

Immediately on my return to Honolulu I had called a 
mass meeting of natives, explained the situation fully, as- 
sured the people of the loyal support and leadership of the 
Delegate, and showed them that the matter was squarely up 
to the Hawaiian voters, that I was there simply to help in 
any way I could and that it was the opportunity of a life 
time for the Hawaiian voters to vindicate their quality and 
expel an enemy that their Kings had fought from the be- 
ginning. 

The first committee of natives that waited on our League 
was composed mostly of ministers and wholly of Christian 
men, and they asked for $11,000 to be appropriated at once, for 
the employment of "runners," at $2.00 a day ; which being 
interpreted meant that we should hire, say a hundred natives 
for about sixty days, to take their regular meals and enjoy 
life conversing over calabashes of poi, in favor of prohibition. 
Our answer was : "This is a fight for life and thrift and decency 
by the -Hawaiian people, they ought not to ask pay for it, and 
we ought not to pay, save for actual and necessary service 
rendered." And right there we lost the plebiscite. The natives 
had never seen such an election or heard of one, and even the 
best of them could not grasp the idea. We spent about $5,000 
for literature, postage, speakers, headquarters, etc., roughly 
three to one against us. The liquor dealers put the most 
money into the most pious and orderly districts and carried 
them by the largest majorities, so thick was the darkness of 
misunderstanding. The Delegate charged us later with having 

19 



let the election go by default. We did so far as the usual, 
practical bribery was concerned. We simply saw to it that the 
case was made clear to the electorate and left it there and lost, 
in honor, rather than to win in shame. 

While the Hawaiian conceives an election to be nothing 
more than a festival of workless jobs and treats and meetings, 
he is not really a mercenary grafter. He knows only what he 
has been taught about elections, and has been badly taught. 
In his education as a voter serious patriotism has had no place. 
He has been simply a boy following the circus. There is no 
doubt at all but he loves his country better than money. If 
his loyalty to the Prince and to the race had been challenged 
by the Delegate on the grounds of patriotism and religion he 
would have been unapproachable by corruption and would 
have moved forward a generation on the 26th day of July. 

The plebiscite was a farce or a tragedy, because the Prince 
was a child, like the rest. I do not charge him with corruption. 
He is a child. He holds his office for absolutely no reason 
but because he alone can carry the Hawaiian vote, and the 
business interests of the Territory can well afford to pay Mr. 
McClellan the salary of a member of Congress to attend to the 
territorial business here. 

I realize that this raises unpleasant suggestions about 
Hawaiian political conditions for which my own best friends 
and supporters are not blameless, and I should not shrink from 
going into it if it were necessary. But it is not necessary. I 
need only remind you that the Territory is the farthest and 
crudest frontier of American politics, and political processes 
are of the most elemental character. Trade not only follows 
the flag, but trade is the flag at the meeting place of American 
prowess and Polynesian weakness. The strong, rich men who 
made the Territory and dominate it, must have and will have 
security for their operations. The natives must have offices 
and jobs, and there you are. The natives get the offices and 
jobs, and the business interests get security by contributing 
all the election expenses and paying all the taxes. No ques- 
tion of patriotism arises, as a rule. The taxes are large, for 
the Territory is very rich. The "expenses" are heavy, for we 
have a wealthy Democrat in Honolulu who is opposed to the 
labor policy and the land policy, is a free spender, and un- 
commonly good mixer with the natives, and aspires to Con- 

20 



gress. The Republicans have to beat him. They do, with the 
Prince and about $30,000 a round. Then they employ Mr. 
McClellan to do the work, at an additional cost which in view 
of all the circumstances seems insignificant. 

The following from the issue of December 29th of the 
Pacific Commercial Advertiser of Honolulu — a high-class 
paper in every particular — throws strong light on this unpleas- 
ant phase of the subject. 

''The revolutionary fact that during the recent campaign the 
congressional Republican campaign committee disbursed only $74,373 
for expenses, while the Democratic committee spent the miniature sum 
of $2jj/i and achieved considerable of a victory at that, according 
to figures from Washington, indicate that the days of the dollar as 
the dominant factor in a straight campaign is waning. 

"Duirng this same campaign it is generally understood that 
both the Democrats and the Republicans of this territory provided 
"sinews of war" in excess of, or approximately, the total sums spent 
by the national committees; the excuse on each side being that the 
other side was spending so much money that they were forced to do 
so too." 

There are those in Hawaii who say that the conduct of 
the natives in the plebiscite takes away their title to our sym- 
pathy. I cannot accept that view. They were put to a test 
that was too hard for them. It would be as fair to open a bar- 
rel of whisky in an Indian village and then hold a local option 
election. Senators knew that, and I did. The only hope in 
the course that was adopted lay in the promise of the Delegate. 
He could have stopped the liquor scourge. He could have 
saved his people. I still think that he meant to do it. For his 
failure I can only pity him as I pity the people whom he was 
too weak to lead in the greatest opportunity they ever faced. 

So now having done what we could against hopeless odds 
at home, we intend to come back to Congress even more con- 
fidently than before and much more needy ; for the result of 
the plebiscite has so enlarged the desire and the insolence of 
the liquor trade that it fairly puffs like an adder in the politics 
of the Islands, fearing nothing but Congress. 

The natives are even more aggressively and mercilessly 
exploited than before, and wife beating, rape and murder are 
even more common in our lovliest possession. Soldiers and 
sailors in charge of complicated batteries, battle ships and ship 

21 



yards are preyed upon by the meanest business that the world 
has ever seen. 

The spirit of civilization that impels us to hunt and kill 
bubonic rats, yellow fever, mosquitoes and filthy house flies, 
to drain malarial swamps, abolish dung hills and the typhoid 
pollution of our water sources seems to leave Congress no 
choice but to expel the liquor traffic from this focal point of 
American civilization, and to save it from becoming — as it is 
rapidly becoming — the American Port Said and make it, — as 
indeed Congress proposes to make it — the American Gibraltar. 

January, 191 1. 



22 



NOV 18 1 * 11 



One copy del. to Cat. Div. 



nov ts ttn 



